VIKRAM SINGH Vs. A D M E AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. arises in the following circumstances :-

(2.) IT appears that after the conclusion of these proceedings Dwarika Prasad began raising a wall on the said land. This was objected by Vikram Singh who filed an application before the Magistrate on the allegrations that some unsocial elements were trying to raise constructions on this plot. He prayed for police help. A report was called for by the Magistrate. After a perusal or that report the Magistrate came to the conclusion that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. had already ended in favour of Dwarika Prasad and Vikram Singh was not entitled to police help. It may be mentioned here that Dwarika also made an application to the Magistrate praying that police help may be given to him so that he may complete the construction of the wall on plot No. 94 of which he was the owner in possession. It appears that on 20th September, 1975, the S. D. M. passed an order giving police help to Dwarika. Aggrieved by this order, an application was moved by Vikram Singh before the A.D.M. (E) Varanasi praying that the order of the S.D.M. dated 30th September, 1975, be quashed. Vikram Singh succeeded in obtaining an interim order of stay from the A D.M. (E) staying the operation of the order of the S. D. M. A report was called for by the A. D. M. and ultimately on 24th November, 1975, the interim order was vacated and A.D.M. (E) directed that Dwarika Prasad and others should be allowed to continue the constructions over the land in question and that Vikram Singh if he had any rights, to seek his remedy in a civil court. Aggrieved thereby, the present application has been filed.

(3.) MOREOVER , on merits also the petitioner has no case. He has already lost in proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. as early as 1971. He was directed by the Magistrate to go to a Civil Court for adjudication of his rights if he desired the eviction of Dwarika Prasad. Dwarika Prasad was held to be in possession of plot No. 94 on the date of the preliminary order passed in proceedings under Section 145 Cr P.C. It therefore, does not lie in the mouth of the applicant to say that he is in possession without taking recourse to civil proceedings as directed by the Magistrate. There can be no doubt that the applicant Vikrara Singh having lost in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is causing unnecessary harassment by obstructing construction of the wall on plot No. 94 by the rightful person i.e. Dwarika Prasad and Rameshwar. He is thus not entitled to any relief in the interest of justice. For the reasons given above, I find no merit in this application. It is hereby rejected. Application rejected.